Ogle v. State

The state's forensic interviewing expert did not give an opinion on the ultimate issue when she testified based on her extensive experience that the victim's interview was consistent with one given by a child who has been sexually molested.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A DeKalb County jury found Michael W. Ogle guilty of aggravated child molestation and child molestation, which charges arose in relation to acts Ogle perpetrated against his eleven-year-old stepdaughter. He appeals, claiming error in the introduction of an essay written by the victim and error in the introduction of testimony addressing the “ultimate issue”; he also alleges a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no merit in the enumerated errors, we affirm. 1. Ogle argues that the admission of an essay written by the victim was error because the essay was an inadmissible “victim impact statement,” and it was inadmissible as a prior consistent statement. This contention is meritless.

Ogle defended on the basis that the victim’s accusations were sudden and unexpected; that she was “making this up because Mr. Ogle is strict, she has a boyfriend down in Alabama she wants to be with, and she is accusing him in order to get down there with the boyfriend.” In support of this defense, four witnesses were called to testify that, prior to the victim’s accusation, Ogle’s relationship with her appeared to be excellent and there appeared to be no difficulties between the two. In addition, Ogle introduced letters to him from the victim that stressed her love for him and indicated no problem in their relationship. In rebuttal, the State re-called the victim, who testified about the contents of an essay she had written as a class assignment several months before trial. In it, she wrote of Ogle’s molestation and how during the abuse, in order to protect her mother and younger sister, she “deceived those around her making them believe that they had the perfect life and the perfect family.” The defense objected to the essay because it was “cumulative” of the victim’s video-taped statement that had previously been introduced.

Ogle v. State

The state's forensic interviewing expert did not give an opinion on the ultimate issue when she testified based on her extensive experience that the victim's interview was consistent with one given by a child who has been sexually molested.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report